May 14, 2014

New York’s new mayor swept into office on a campaign against inequality. President Barack Obama has made any number of speeches about the rich who don’t pay their fair share. And yet, nationwide, this has not translated into big gains for the Democrats who are pushing it. Why is a phenomenon that keeps being heralded as the defining issue of our time such weak tea at the ballot box?

As a new article from Bloomberg News explains, Democrats aren’t benefiting from hammering on inequality because almost all the areas with the worst inequality are already controlled by Democrats.

That’s not an accident. Democratic policies promote inequality. And that’s not an accident either.

You can make a case that the difference between the Republican and Democratic politics of wealth lie in the difference between who tends to make up “the wealthy” in their districts. The rich of America’s affluent urban areas tend to be the beneficiaries, one way or another, of a global tournament economy in which markets are often close to “winner take all,” and vast sums can flow to people who are just a little bit better than their competitors. The wealthy in Republican districts, on the other hand, are more likely to be competing in local or national markets, not glamour industries, where sales are ground out one at a time. Because the sums involved are smaller, the wealth gap is also smaller — and business owners are less likely to be sympathetic to the idea that their success has a huge luck component.

Democratic policies are the warfare of the very-rich, allied with the poor, against the middle class and the petty-rich.

I own a business of the sort Ms. McArdle describes and her take is spot-on. What astonishes me is the Obama administration and most in his party are actually openly hostile to small business, and that is something new in American politics, with the exception of Mrs. Clinton sneering 20 years ago during the Hillarycare debate that she "can't save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America." We're a long way from the days of Harry Truman, who was actually a small businessman himself before he got into politics.

You might say the rich in the Democrat-controlled areas are rich due to their privilege? They won due to connections, genetic talent, winning the Ivy lottery, etc. Or by having an uncle who could get them in the union or on at the fire department, or both.

Whereas, the rich in the Republican-leaning areas are those who compete to do something useful for others day in and day out while employing many skilled workers to bring benefit through their collective actions?

Well, I guess that goes a long way to why so many Progs are yelling about "check your privilege". It's a diversion so you don't check their privileged networks, access to top coaches, schools and "non-profit" internships.

Honestly we're fooling ourselves if we think lefties care about anything they scream about. "social justice" is just their justification, it's not what they really care about. Lefties aren't made at Obama for being a typical left wing Democrat, ie incompetent and a liar. No, they think he has access to a magic button that will make everyone's lives easier, and he's acting like a Captain Planet villain by not pushing it.

The main thing to remember...is that while Democrats control the cities...every single city in this country has only about a 2 week supply of food on any given day. If a civil war breaks out between conservatives in the 'burbs and countryside and Dems supporters in cities...who do you think will end up starving? Those who control the cities, or those who control the food producing areas?

Rhodesia/Zimbabwe learned the bitter lesson of what happens when you give city people farms...they starve in droves...Rhodesia used to be one of the largest exporters of food in Africa...now it is the 2nd largest importer of food (behind Egypt)...that CAN happen here. Fortunately, conservatives own far more guns than progressives do...and most National Guard Armouries are out in the counties...not in the cities...mull upon that one as well.

The rich of America’s affluent urban areas tend to be the beneficiaries, one way or another, of a global tournament economy in which markets are often close to “winner take all,” and vast sums can flow to people who are just a little bit better than their competitors.

I believe that voters on the left side of the political spectrum are more likely to think that they are better, smarter, or special in some way. It appears to annoy them when someone less credentialed has more visible signs of high income. In contrast, voters on the right side of the political spectrum seem to be less driven by social status and wealth. Nobody wants to be poor, but voters on the right seem to be less concerned with their status relative to the highest income members of the community.

Maybe it's simply easier to keep up with the Joneses in rural areas. For example, there are few luxury car dealerships far outside of cities and buying a larger home is inexpensive. The vehicle choice is Ford vs. Chevrolet. Land is cheap and custom houses get built without middlemen in business and government taking their cut. Out in the country, owning a boat is more likely a sign that you like to fish than a sign that you have money.

Not so much the poor, as the self-appointed "leaders" of the poor...the bureaucrats and the community organizers of the Welfare-Nonprofit Complex. The actual poor are mostly alienated and scratching for crumbs.

Howdy VaTThe actual poor may be alienated and scratching for crumbs. They're also voting to pick your pockets (and mine) and to give up their liberty (and ours). A lot of them may be skipping elections but too many are voting for ruin.

Yes, but the latter is especially amenable to change. I would say choosing better associates and places to associate and reasons to associate a decade ago did wonders for my life. It took six to seven years to bear fruit but had I spent those six years at 27 instead of 37 the effect would have been even larger.

45 weeks ago

Report Abuse

45 weeks agoEdit Report AbuseLink To Comment

This comment has been reported.
Click here
to view it anyway.

1
2
3Next View All

... (show more)

Update CommentCancel

2 Trackbacks to “MEGAN MCARDLE: Why Inequality’s A Loser For Democrats:
New York’s new mayor swept into office …”

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.